Coupling conditionally independent submaps for large-scale 2.5D mapping with Gaussian Markov Random Fields
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Building large-scale 2.5D maps when spatial correlations are considered can be quite expensive, but there are clear advantages when fusing data. While optimal submapping strategies have been explored previously in covariance-form using Gaussian Process for large-scale mapping, this paper focuses on transferring such concepts into information form. By exploiting the conditional independence property of the Gaussian Markov Random Field (GMRF) models, we propose a submapping approach to build a nearly optimal global 2.5D map. In the proposed approach data is fused by first fitting a GMRF to one sensor dataset; then conditional independent submaps are inferred using this model and updated individually with new data arrives. Finally, the information is propagated from submap to submap to later recover the fully updated map. This is efficiently achieved by exploiting the inherent structure of the GMRF, fusion and propagation all in information form. The key contribution of this paper is the derivation of the algorithm to optimally propagate information through submaps by only updating the common parts between submaps. Our results show the proposed method reduces the computational complexity of the full mapping process while maintaining the accuracy. The performance is evaluated on synthetic data from the Canadian Digital Elevation Data.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".